3 ms·
>I think (Software) engineer types like most of us here on are much to quick to dismiss anything that we conceive as "soft science". Often based on mechanical a
by dvt 4y ago
>I think (Software) engineer types like most of us here on are much to quick to dismiss anything that we conceive as "soft science". Often based on mechanical arguments and very often with little qulaifation ourselves.
I'm a trained philosopher and I have the utmost respect for "soft sciences"—in fact, in my experience, the smartest people I've ever met were philosophers, not engineers.
Unfortunately, this author seems like he is neither. He doesn't have the technical precision of an engineer, nor does he have the argumentative force of a philosopher. So we're left with "computer talk back so it smart."
- Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago> Unfortunately, this author seems like he is neither. He doesn't have the technical precision of an engineer, nor does he have the argumentative force of a philosopher. So we're left with "computer talk back so it smart." Not only that, but if you were to choose a hill on which your career would die, the "computer talk back so it smart" would be one of the worst ones you could pick.
- dmix 4y agoIf you were going to present such a position you should have the foresight to know people will be very dismissive of you for even proposing such a thing, so it should come with a flurry of 'before you dismiss me outright' type of preambles, which I don't really see here. It's easy to be quickly dismissive on the internet, hell I'm sure most of us who are being dismissive haven't really dug into any of his arguments. It's just difficult to motivate people to do that when that's your starting proposition. Maybe something got lost in between the way it was presented by journalists but he chose to completely side-step the contents in his blog post so it's the only thing we've got.